Details debated in child porn case against Lesley Klinzmann

Evidence submitted in child porn suspect's motions hearing

STERLING -- The case against accused child porn viewer Lesley Klinzmann featured much talk but few fireworks Wednesday as Judge Charles Hobbs heard motions for his case in Logan County District Court.

Klinzmann faces a class 3 felony charge of possession or control of sexually exploitative material, which he pleaded not guilty to on June 28.

In about an hour of discussion, prosecutors managed to submit an exhibit of talks between Klinzmann and Sterling Police Investigator James Coleman, the court agreed to reassess search and arrest warrants and the defense was denied access to copies of pornographic videos retrieved from Klinzmann's computer.

The exhibit -- a disc with copies of a video and personal recorder records of a March 21 talk between Coleman and Klinzmann -- brought Coleman to the stand to discuss the contents of the disc.

Defense Attorney Matthew Giacomini said the disc's submission was not appropriate as he didn't know what it had on it. Lewton argued that the motion was filed "days ago."

Through questions, Coleman told the court he had talked with Klinzmann a day after officers searched his house. Klinzmann had called Coleman several times.

Much of the discussion stayed off the topic of what they talked about during the interview, focusing instead on the nature of the talk: If he was read his Miranda rights, if he was told he could leave, if Coleman had mentioned officers had seized certain items, for example.

Advertisement

The answers: Klinzmann wasn't under arrest, so Miranda rights weren't necessary. He was told he was free to leave before the interview, and Coleman couldn't recall telling him officers had seized items from his home.

Giacomini also motioned to suppress information provided as the result of the search warrant or arrest warrant, arguing he'd been denied a chance to cross examine those who wrote the affidavit.

Hobbs said that on search warrants the courts were confined to reviewing the affidavit to establish probable cause for a warrant. He added that the affidavit in this case involved "five, six pages of technical speech" describing the online research tools, the files located and officer accounts.

He did say that the court would take the request under advisement and re-look at the warrants.

Giacomini had asked for copies of the pornographic material involved in the case as well, but Hobbs denied his request. Colorado law says sexually exploitative material shall remain in the care of the prosecution, a law enforcement agency or the court.

"There's been no request at all to use the evidence," said Lewton.

Attorneys generally come to the location of the material and are allowed to bring experts and examine the material while it's in the care of the possessor. Lewton added that she's never seen copies made of sexually exploitative material in any case in this jurisdiction.

But the travel associated with that process is costing the courts "thousands," according to Gaicomini. One computer expert he's worked with said the process of copying material is done frequently in other areas, and that an attorney "needs to be able to use his own tools in his own lab."

Hobbs said he'd agree to a hearing on why the defendant has been prejudiced by this action, but he didn't agree with the argument that the effort was an "added expense."

In other action, Hobbs decided to look at a request to modify Klinzmann's protection order conditions to determine whether he should get more time to visit his son.

The defendant currently gets less than two hours to visit with his son at Sterling's Family Resource Center once per week. Klinzmann was asking to extend that time to twice per week.

Laura Bacon, the child's mother and Klinzmann's ex-wife, argued that the issue fell under domestic court and that the visitation decision should be made there.

Hobbs, who will also preside over the domestic case, decided to wait to modify the conditions until a domestic hearing.

The court also looked at a second case against Klinzmann in which he allegedly broke the conditions of his protection order after being in the vicinity of minors.

That case will also go to a two-day trial between Jan. 3 and 4. He'll have a motions hearing on that case at 9 a.m. Oct. 3.

Article Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates our ground rules, is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, reckless to the community, etc.

We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.

Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

Our commenting section is self-policing, so if you see a comment that violates our ground rules, flag it (mouse over to the far right of the commenter's name until you see the flag symbol and click that), then we'll review it.